Who was worse - Hitler or Stalin?

[ElFenix]

back into P&N trolls!

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You are more than welcome to disagree all you like. As I said before: I reject the idea that one Dictator is better (or "less bad", if you prefer) than another simply due to their scale of atrocity. How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all. Are they murderers and obliterators of the rights of human beings or not? I think that's the only important question.

Jason

Well, as I said, I really don't know what else to say. You're equating *all* dictators are grouped the same, regardless of any differing level of death? That's just simply bizzare.

Oh well. I'm sure Konstantine Chernyenko's family would be glad to know he's grouped up there with Hitler in your mind.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all.
Jason

You're not quite "with it", are you?

How can any rational person NOT see that a guy who kills 1000 people is worse than a guy who kills 100 people? He's responsible for 10 times as much death.

If the number of people murdered didn't matter, then you'd have all simple murderers on the same level as tyrants like Stalin and Hitler. The number of lives they are responsible for destroying definitely matters.

Why does it matter? Is it acceptable for me to murder ONE person but it somehow becomes unacceptable when that number gets into the triple or quadruple digits? If this is your mode of thinking, what's the "magic number" of people up to which I can kill before I get to be a "bad" guy?

You are arguing, for some reason I can't see, that whether you are an evil dictator or not depends entirely on how many people you slaughter. I've said before, I'll say again: Walking over the rights of others, using FORCE to impose your will on others is WRONG, whether you do it to one person or one million persons. There is NO acceptable number under which you are still an OK guy.

Why would you even *argue* that there is a point at which a dictator isn't so bad?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Quick way to think about this, which dictator would you rather be subject to, if you had to choose.

I'd much rather be a citizen in Castro's Cuba than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Tough to pick between Hitler and Stalin though, both are vile... might depend on your race.

I'd rather not live under a dictator *at all*. I'd rather that no one had to.

Jason

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: bernse

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You are more than welcome to disagree all you like. As I said before: I reject the idea that one Dictator is better (or "less bad", if you prefer) than another simply due to their scale of atrocity. How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all. Are they murderers and obliterators of the rights of human beings or not? I think that's the only important question.

Jason

Well, as I said, I really don't know what else to say. You're equating *all* dictators are grouped the same, regardless of any differing level of death? That's just simply bizzare.
How in the world did you drag Chernenko into this? AFAIK he did not preside over any of the atrocities.
Oh well. I'm sure Konstantine Chernyenko's family would be glad to know he's grouped up there with Hitler in your mind.

 

[bernse]

Because Chernyenko was a dictator. Read the thread.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: bernse

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You are more than welcome to disagree all you like. As I said before: I reject the idea that one Dictator is better (or "less bad", if you prefer) than another simply due to their scale of atrocity. How can one look at the array of dictators and say, "Oh, well Dictator X has only murdered a hundred people, he's not so bad, at least not compared to Dictator Y who killed 1,000!". It just makes no damn sense at all. Are they murderers and obliterators of the rights of human beings or not? I think that's the only important question.

Jason

Well, as I said, I really don't know what else to say. You're equating *all* dictators are grouped the same, regardless of any differing level of death? That's just simply bizzare.
How in the world did you drag Chernenko into this? AFAIK he did not preside over any of the atrocities.
Oh well. I'm sure Konstantine Chernyenko's family would be glad to know he's grouped up there with Hitler in your mind.

I really could care less what his family, friends, dog or anyone else thinks. Why should *any* dictator be granted *any* moral validity whatsoever?

Jason

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Quick way to think about this, which dictator would you rather be subject to, if you had to choose.

I'd much rather be a citizen in Castro's Cuba than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Tough to pick between Hitler and Stalin though, both are vile... might depend on your race.

I'd rather not live under a dictator *at all*. I'd rather that no one had to.

Jason

Then you're just dodging the question as posed in the op.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Quick way to think about this, which dictator would you rather be subject to, if you had to choose.

I'd much rather be a citizen in Castro's Cuba than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Tough to pick between Hitler and Stalin though, both are vile... might depend on your race.

I'd rather not live under a dictator *at all*. I'd rather that no one had to.

Jason

Then you're just dodging the question as posed in the op.

Explain your reasoning if you would? The OP didn't *ask* what dictator we'd rather live under, he asked whether Hitler or Stalin was worse. I answered that question: They were the same, brutal dictators have no moral superiority one over the other.

Jason

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Is it acceptable for me to murder ONE person but it somehow becomes unacceptable when that number gets into the triple or quadruple digits? If this is your mode of thinking, what's the "magic number" of people up to which I can kill before I get to be a "bad" guy?

You are arguing, for some reason I can't see, that whether you are an evil dictator or not depends entirely on how many people you slaughter. I've said before, I'll say again: Walking over the rights of others, using FORCE to impose your will on others is WRONG, whether you do it to one person or one million persons. There is NO acceptable number under which you are still an OK guy.

Why would you even *argue* that there is a point at which a dictator isn't so bad?

Jason

You're incredibly dense. That was also the poorest attempt to set up a strawman that I've seen all week.

You seem to be forgetting what we've already said, which is:

1) neither of these guys were good guys.

2) murder is wrong

Yet when you've run out of ammo in your pathetically poor argument, you try to put words in people's mouths and claim that they think that murder is ok or these guys were good. That's just sad if that's the limit of your comprehension.

For the mentally challenged folks out there (hint: you), it's wrong to kill somebody, but it's much worse to kill millions of people. Got that? Are you capable of understanding that?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex


I really could care less what his family, friends, dog or anyone else thinks. Why should *any* dictator be granted *any* moral validity whatsoever?

Jason

Please check your keyboard for it seems to be malfunctioning. It's placing unnecessary asterisks in all of your posts.

It's *quite* difficult to *read* a *post* that's *written* like *this*.

 

[Beowulf]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
Quick way to think about this, which dictator would you rather be subject to, if you had to choose.

I'd much rather be a citizen in Castro's Cuba than Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR.

Tough to pick between Hitler and Stalin though, both are vile... might depend on your race.

Lived in Cuba for 15 years well born and raised and that sh!t was horrible.Glad I left that sh!thole even though it is my country.

 

[Brule]

Originally posted by: yoda291
I don't think either of them were really too awful.

That's one of the most ignorant and scary things I've ever read on AT.

Hitler pretty much dragged germany out of a ww1 induced economic depression and turned it into a military and industrial superpower. From the perspective of the German people, they went from mulling around the streets starving to prosperity in a matter of months IIRC.

They never reached any substainable, true prosperity. The Nazi's acted like a virus, feeding off conquest while creating no value on their own.

Stalin pretty much rode on the coattails of Lenin and turned Russia from an agrarian society just starting to recover from a civil war into an industrial powerhouse in record time. Likely he was egged on by the political and economic climate all over europe at the time.

Except that a large majority of Warsaw pact citizens remained at that low standard of living for almost 50 years while the party elite reaped all the benefits.

Now while it's unlikely that either of them deserve sole credit for anything, it tends to pan out that way. I think they only seem really evil just because they ended up losing. Makes you wonder. Would we consider Abe Lincoln an evil man if we lost the civil war? Oodles of americans died there. How would we regard Jefferson Davis?

Stalin did "win" in his lifetime. There is a relationship where despots cannot substain their rule when their victims attempt to obstain more liberty. (with a few exceptions due to the dark ages and such) This should not lead to the conclusion that if one loses they are evil but instead that if a leader is evil they will be more likely to lose in the long run.

I don't really think it comes down to such a black and white situation here. If I learned anything in history, the answer is never that simple.

Quite the opposite is true. To a Jew facing a gas chamber the situation is black and white, life and death. If one defends the actions of a criminal by blaming the situation they are implictly defending those actions.

 

[Fenixgoon]

stalin, although Klin has a very good point:

Originally posted by: KLin
They both have a special place reserved for them in hell.

 

[sonz70]

Stalin, He killed indescriminantly, anyone and everyone, whereas Hitler had a sought out goal, and killed a specific group. That might argue that Hitler was more evil in his killings, as he killed a certain group, but for worse, Stalin was, since he killed everyone.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Anonemous
Darth Sidious

oh wait wrong thread...

Actually, the Empire from Star Wars doesn't even come CLOSE to the Nazi party in terms of evil.

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Actually yes, I WOULD put Castro on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. True, he hasn't managed to impose nearly the death, destruction and carnage that those two have, but that hardly makes him a good guy, now does it? As for your other very, very poor example, a rapist is a rapist pure and simple. Whether he'll be out in 5 years is immaterial, he's still a guy who decided he had the right to FORCE his will onto another, and that's just wrong. I'm sorry but you can't defend these kinds of people and hold ANY credibility whatsoever.

Jason

Everyone has done some wrong in the world. With your ranking system, everyone is wholly evil and guilty of death.

I mean, c'mon...the guy who steals a piece of candy from the store is the same as the guy who robs millions of dollars from charities? Gimme a break.